Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Columbia Is Divided by Bollinger Remarks

Lee C. Bollinger, Columbia University’s president, speaking before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took the lectern at Columbia on Monday. (Photo: Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times)

How did Lee C. Bollinger do?

Following the speech this afternoon by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Columbia’s campus was abuzz today with discussion about the strident criticism that Mr. Bollinger, the university’s president, leveled at Mr. Ahmadinejad, who was sitting just a few feet away.

Already, some are saying that Mr. Bollinger’s criticism was an unorthodox — or even ungracious — way of treating an invited guest. Others applauded the university president’s remarks as a brave act of principle.
As Mr. Bollinger walked across the campus around 4 p.m. today, several students at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs — including a student who said she was insulted by the harsh language but declined to give her name because she lives and works in Iran — accosted Mr. Bollinger.

“This is a debate,” he replied. “These are very important things that have to be said.” He then rushed off, saying he needed to prepare to class.

Matteen Mokalla, a 26-year-old Iranian American student at SIPA, who is from Napa, Calif., said of Mr. Bollinger’s remarks: “A lot of us who were sitting there watching him thought, ‘Wow. That’s really strong language for a member of the academy.’ … I wasn’t insulted, I just felt that the president of Columbia University should not use the language of the Bush administration.”

Mr. Mokalla said he believed that Mr. Bollinger invited Mr. Ahmadinejad and then “just insulted him.”

He added, “Regardless of how he feels about the president of Iran, I didn’t think it was appropriate.”

Gazelle Javantash, 27, a graduate student at SIPA who was born in Iran, but grew up in California, said she believed that Mr. Ahmadinejad “felt attacked.” She said, “He talked about feeling disrespected. Respect is a huge thing in Persian culture. They could have gotten more out of him if they showed more respect in the beginning.”

“It was completely shocking,” Ms. Javantash added. “I never expected the president of a university to speak to the head of a country like that.”

David S. Trilling, 29, a SIPA student, read a statement on behalf of Iranian students at the school who, he said, could not speak publicly because they feared reprisals against their families in Iran. The statement asked Bush to “tone down” his militant rhetoric and said, “The main issue is that the world must not be tricked into believing that war and sanctions are the solution. The more antagonistic the stance of the U.S., the more the current regime is strengthened.” The statement added: “Please do not try and democratize Iran. Let us democratize ourselves.”

Fatemeh Farshneshani, 21, an Iranian graduate film student at Columbia, agreed. “Any change in Iran should come from within,” she said, as she carried an Iranian flag on a pole. Asked about Mr. Ahmadinejad’s speech, she called it “typical.” She added, “It is hard to speak clearly when you hold such extreme views.”

Jackie Carpenter, 33, a SIPA student studying Russian affairs, offered a similar assessment. “Bollinger took a big political risk, and it’s obvious that’s the reason why he felt he had to excoriate Ahmadinejad before he even had the chance to speak,” she said. “There’s an irony here to me on the fact that he’s talking about freedom of speech and yet he doesn’t allow Ahmadinejad the room to speak before he was attacked.”

Jacob Kriegel, a senior at Columbia, who is from Sharon, Mass., applauded Mr. Bollinger for taking on Mr. Ahmadinejad. “I was skeptical of how much he was actually going to challenge him but he was ferocious in his attack,” Mr. Kriegel said.

Betsy Jaeger, who was born in Prague to survivors of the Holocaust and graduated from Columbia in 1972, said she concluded from the event that Mr. Ahmadinejad was “a conniver and a liar.” She said, “He has an answer for everything and says nothing. He made a laughing stock of the university.” Still, she added, “Bollinger did well.”

Students offered a mix of views on whether the event itself was worthwhile.

Sara Arias, 21, a senior from Spain, 21, said of the speech, “It was utterly disgraceful and it was an utter waste of time. The man did not answer any of the questions that were posed to him. He was was evasive is all of his answers. He kept going on about the promotion of science in Iran and yet, any scientist who goes there runs the risk of being imprisoned. Frankly, this man is just a hypocrite.” She said she found particularly laughable Mr. Ahmadinejad’s observation that homosexuals do not exist in Iran.

Several thousand students watched and listened to a live telecast of the speech on the southeast lawn of Columbia’s Morningside Heights campus, in front of the Butler Library. Many said they found the event worthwhile.

“It would be going against a lost of ethics that we stand for not to invite someone just because we don’t agree with what he says,” said Alex Paige, a 19-year-old sophomore from Washington, D.C., during the speech. He assessed the talk this way: “I think it’s been a little bit off-topic.” Mr. Paige said Mr. Ahmadinejad waited too long to get to the substance of his remarks, about Iran’s role in the world. “If he’s short on time, he should have started with that instead of giving a lesson on the Koran.”

Red Samaniego, a 19-year-old freshman from San Diego, who attends Barnard College, said the talk highlighted the importance of free speech. “Because he’s invited here doesn’t necessarily mean that his actions are condoned, but shows a quest for understanding,” she said.

Amital Isaac, 18, a Jewish student who wore an anti-Ahmadinejad black T-shirt, said she was glad to hear from Iran’s president and said she thought the speech brought up interesting questions. “Should I be against him coming to Columbia — or against him?” she said.

“He began the speech with religion and everyone on the lawn was rolling their eyes,” she said. “They knew it was propaganda.” But it got people talking, she said, “and that doesn’t happen everyday.” She added: “Le Monde said Columbia now has a political conscience. I was rather proud. I consider this the beginning of my political student career.”

Some Columbia students tried, as college students often do, to bring some fun and irreverence to the occasion. Sheenah Shirakhon, 20, an Iranian-American Jew who grew up in San Fransisco, took off the blouse and red skirt she had worn after speaking at a lectern on the steps of Low Library and posed in a silver bikini top that said “No War” on it, with shorts that continued “In Iran” painted across the back.

Moments before the speech began, protesters unfurled a banner telling Ahmadinejad to “Get Out of My Campus.”

The steps of Low Memorial Library, Columbia’s administrative center, were the forum for a wide variety of groups and individuals. Aaron Krieger, an organizer of the forum, said the speeches were supposed to focus on the question of whether or not Mr. Ahmadinejad should have been invited. But the talks often veered off topic. One student, for example, used her allotted time (about 10 minutes) to recite the names of juveniles on death row in Iran.

Makini Boothe, a Barnard College senior who spoke on behalf of Baha’i students, said her faith believes that “from the clash of opinions comes the spark of truth,” and so she supported Mr. Ahmadinejad’s right to speak — even though Baha’i students are often repressed in Iran.

Cassie Spodak, a junior anthropology major at Barnard and member of the College Democrats, said at the lectern, “Despite claims that Columbia is rolling out the red carpet for the Iranian President, nothing could be further from the truth. By agreeing to appear at Columbia, President Ahmadinejad has accepted the university’s insistence that half of the event time devoted to a question and answer session in which students and faculty will have the opportunity to take Ahmadinejad’s policies to task and force him to rationalize his unsubstantiated claims and ruthless policies.” She added, “Let us embrace the opportunity for the future leaders of this country to put this man to the test.”

Josh Lipsky, a 21-year-old senior at Columbia, and the president of the College Democrats there, agreed, saying, “While it may be politically expedient for some to criticize Columbia’s attempt to reinvigorate diplomatic discourse, there truly is no danger in talking.”

Several students said they had strong personal feelings on the issue of U.S.-Iranian relations.

Ms. Shirakhon, the student who sported an antiwar message on her bikini and shorts, said she feared the prospect of an American armed confrontation with Iran. “What I am really afraid of is that it seems ignorance and fear and anger are here again,” she said. “And no–President Ahmadinejad is not a symbol of our freedom. But — and trust me on this — his power in Iran grows a little bit more every time we put that military option on the table.” American threats against Iran represent for Mr. Ahmadinejad, she said, “a big gift-wrapped package of fear that he can use to defend anything.”

Eitan Bendavid, who graduated from Columbia College in the spring and teaches once a week at the campus Hillel, said, “You may be right, President Bollinger, that Ahmadinejad has the right to speak his mind, but why help his cause and grant him even the smallest trace of legitimacy by opening our university doors to him?” Mr. Bendavid asked, “Are there any red lines?” when it comes to who can speak on campus.

Before the talk, Mr. Bendavid predicted, to cheers, “This talk will probably be just as dishonest as a discussion with Hitler would have been, and equally as dangerous.”

Today, I am proud to be a student at Columbia University. The protests that were carried out were respectful of all sides in a way that is rare to see; supporters and detractors of Ahmadinejad sat together on South Lawn and listened to what both he and President Bollinger had to say; and I have never had a day more full of pertinent conversations with my classmates.

As for Bollinger’s comments: I am completely in support of them. I don’t know if anyone has ever spoken so frankly to Ahmadinejad’s face, but I know that I have been longing for someone with the strength of character to do so. He said those things before Ahmadinejad spoke because, well, that’s where his alloted time was. Was it rude? Can the truth be rude? He IS a petty dictator. He DOES deny the Holocaust, ridiculously. He DOES imprison dissidents, journalists and scientists (and then has the audacity to lecture on the importance of the kind of free and open research and inquiry that are impossible under his regime). Bollinger’s speech proved to me that the freedom of speech is alive and well in America’s universities. We need not be afraid of what Ahmadinejad has to say if there is someone to oppose with such eloquence and candor.

As a SIPA grad, I applaud President Bollinger’s invitation. Yes, he had to come out with strong language and denounce President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s views so that there could be no misinterpretation. It was a rare chance for students and faculty to confront the Iranian president with questions. We need to hear his views no matter how much we despise them to get out of our bubble. As many Iranians and others have written, a university forum like this could not have taken place in Iran. What better way to show that free speech is not dead in this country? I would much rather the US lives up to its Jeffersonian ideals through speech than through military action.

I think it was rude. He seemed to be buying into the political rhetoric surrounding the isolation of Iran in stead of giving the man the podium, and letting the students then take the man to task. Did he really have to tell the students at what is supposedly an elite academic institution what to think? He could have easily acted as referee of the question and answer session and made his points then, if they were worth making. Was he afraid that the President would persuade people? Fear is not a good academic impetus. If we are truly in a position of right in America, would not that be apparent to most people.

Mr. Bollinger displayed the same sort of courage on the dais as displayed by Democrats who supported the war: none.

Afraid of losing contributions and of being denounced from all sides as “soft on terrorism”, he blinked as soon as the first shot was fired. Even if he believed what he was saying, his ad hominem displayed a gross indifference to the principle of academic freedom. Bollinger has disgraced Columbia.

Bollinger, seemingly attempting to preempt criticism of the invitation, came off an inhospitible host and as culturally insensitive. Hospitality is a particularly important virtue in most Muslim cultures, and he exposed himself to Ahmedinejad’s opening criticism on this point.

At least the students in Undergraduate Writing will learn why substantive arguments–of which there were plenty in this case–are usually more effective than ad hominem remarks, such as Bollinger’s likening his guest to a “petty and cruel dictator,” which only diminish the speaker’s credibility.

This was a win for Iran and all the terrorist countries around the world. Why? Easy in Islam if you invite and enemy to a tlk you don’t down them to their face or that shows your, repeat your, weakness and fear.Coatsworth maybe should have had a talk with the acting dean on how to act so not to as hand nuts like his guess a win. He is not allowed at ground zero, so guess what the land of the free is not free to a visitor and then free speech and exchange of ideas is not allowed is the message to every little Bin LAden and Terrorist in the world. This was an “open mouth insert foot” moment for the university and the United States.

#4, I would agree with you if the students were given a forum to actually address Ahmadinejad. They were not; they were allowed to ask questions but not to reply to the president’s notoriously evasive answers. Bollinger told us what to think no more or less than Ahmadinejad did, and it is a disservice to Columbia students to suppose that we would simply take Bollinger on his word that the things of which he accused Ahmadinejad were true. He said little that was not well-documented fact, and the opinions that he voiced were shared, I would wager, by most of those in the audience.

And as for Ahmadinejad’s complaints about the “inhospitality”: he agreed to come to Columbia fully understanding that Bollinger was going to introduce him with harsh criticism. His feigned shock and indignation was just that – rehearsed. It is far more inhospitable to invite journalists and scholars to your country and then jail them indefinitely.

Bollinger clearly scripted his speech to appease the financiers of the univerisity and his paycheck.. His attempt at saving his job is downright pathetic, it would have been funny had this issue not been this serious.

Today made me truly proud to be a Columbia student. Bollinger didn’t tip-toe around the truth like Ahmadinejad; he stated the facts that needed to be stated and asked the questions that needed to be asked. Considering how many people have likened Ahmadinejad’s presence on campus to the presence of Hitler himself, I would think people would be glad someone like Bollinger spoke so harshly against him.

From all the accounts I have heard, this event was exactly what should occur in an academic setting: Both sides were allowed to speak, and those assembled were allowed to critically absorb, dissect and come to their own conclusions about the two messages.

So on what date has Mr Bollenger been invited to Tehran University to share his views with Iranian students?

It certainly seems as if Bollinger set this up for whatever self serving interests he felt compelled to confront in public. I hope the responsible officials within the State Department take him over their knee. He certainly didn’t make their jobs any easier. Every protester present apparently behaved with greater dignity and common sense than this “University President”.

For all of you who are oh soo concerned that that bully, Columbia president Bollinger, may have insulted poor defenseless Ahmadiwutshisface, I’m sure the latter will recover from the shock (of being questioned) before executing his next “nonexistent” gay person.

Lee Bollinger embarrassed himself and his University.
He behaved like the quintessential “ugly American”.
Ahmadinejad was an invited guest, he should have been treated as one regardless of what Bollinger thinks of him. If anyone looked petty it was Bollinger.

Do University Presidents give up their freedom of speech when they sign on for the job? Isn’t it interesting how those who would defend Ahmadinejad’s right to speak are appalled when Bollinger exercises that same right. In fact some on this forum even insist that the views Bollinger expressed must have been forced on him by the “financiers of the university.” It sounds like a conspiracy theory worthy of Mr. Ahmadinejad himself.

Sitting here in London listening to the live airing of today’s debate I was somewhat surprised by the extremely ungracious tone of Mr Bollinger’s opening remarks to an invited guest of his university.

Mr Bollinger came across as a rather crass man attempting to appease his critics.

President Ahmedinejad lacks the intellect to win a debate with anybody, let alone Mr Bollinger but unfortunately it is not the President’s comments that are now being reported on but the controversy generated by Mr Bollinger.

Can anyone imagine, even for a moment, George W. Bush being interviewed by a hostile media overseas, say in Iran; fielding any and all questions, and putting himself through a gauntlet such as Ahmadinejad endured today at Columbia University? Being held to account for his own war crimes, not to mention his wars? Being taken to task for his own hypocrisies, lies, and atrocities without a manager or teleprompter?

The mere notion is laughable, and that should tell you something about this courageous, if sometimes misguided, leader of Iran.

While Prez Bo’s remarks were a little over the top with name calling and rhetoric, it was important to inform the audience about the truth in Iran. It would only serve a disservice for the audience to be mislead by Ahmadinejad’s non-sequitor and soft answers that he provides to the US audience, while at home he gushes hate and intolerance. While I hope that Prez Bo’s hardline approach will be a model for the UN and others to hold the Iranian leaders accountable, I think we can all agree that he was swept up in the moment and took the Ahmadinejad bashing beyond where it needed to be in this setting.

Someone needed to tell Ahmedinejad exactly what the world thinks of him. Every word that came out of his mouth was a downright lie; Bollinger’s comments were the only part of the entire event worth listening to. We gave him a standing ovation.

Bollinger stood up to Ahmadinejad just as he promised from the beginning. He is a true hero who stuck to his guns the whole way through. People are complaining that Bollinger was “rude?” Let’s stop making excuses for Ahmadinejad. He is a big boy who has no right to be sensitive.

Only one thing surprised me in the debate: mr Bollinger. To combine his relevant and precise critical questions with personal insults of president Ahmedinejad was disgraceful. I felt ashamed that our president does not know minimal diplomatic conduct when one invites a guest. Most people learn in primary school to make a difference between the person and his opinions. Mr Bollinger showed himself weak and immature to not stand up for the invitation the school had issued. Shame on you Bollinger.

As for Ahmedinejad, he is not a saint. His responses varied from ignorance to interesting elaboration. But I was impressed that stayed like a statesmen despite Bollingers misbehaviour.

Bollinger was way out of line, not to mention rude and about nine rungs below the level of decorum one would expect from the President of an elite university.
And he doesn’t get it about Ahmadinejad; he may have the title of President of Iran but the reality is he is a wooden prop, a secular front for the mullahs. He is nothing more than a fonctionnaire, and not a very bright one at that. Which is precisely the reason it was not the intelligent move to invite him to speak in the first place. You want real discourse with the leadership of Iran? Bring in the Grand Ayatollah or a senior mullah from the Guardian Council, not the office manager.
In this entire affair Bollinger loses all the way around.

Lee Bollinger said what many of our leaders should have said – and Lee Bollinger did what many of our leaders should have done.

He invited the guy to speak, he introduced him with little fanfare, less falsity and more intelligence than the likes of Bush Admin could ever have achieved.

The elected leader of Iran was allowed to freely address the audience and form his own answers.

Columbia University handled the entire situation far better than expected as did the NYPD. There were demonstrations seen and heard – which is something the Bush Admin has not allowed to happen within hearing or eyesight of Pres. Bush I might add.

What's Next

Looking for New York Today?

New York Today is still going strong! Though no longer on City Room, New York Today continues to appear every weekday morning, offering a roundup of news and events for the city. You can find the latest New York Today at nytoday.com or in the morning, on The New York Times homepage or its New York section. You can also receive it via email.

Lookin for Metropolitan Diary?

Metropolitan Diary continues to publish! Since 1976, Metropolitan Diary has been a place for New Yorkers, past and present, to share odd fleeting moments in the city. We will continue to publish one item each weekday morning and a round-up in Monday's print edition. You can find the latest entries at nytimes.com/diary and on our New York section online.

About

City Room®, a news blog of live reporting, features and reader conversations about New York City, has been archived. Send questions or suggestions by e-mail.